Afternoon summary
BMA Scotland has called off a planned strike by junior doctors after the Scottish government offered them a 12.4% pay rise. (See 3.46pm.)
The Scottish government is challenging Westminster to decriminalise all drugs for personal use, in a fresh attempt to tackle Scotland’s chronically high drug death rates.
Murals of cartoon characters, including Mickey Mouse and Baloo from The Jungle Book, painted on the walls of an asylum seeker reception centre to welcome children, have been removed on the orders of the immigration minister, Robert Jenrick.
Keir Starmer has said he and the former senior civil servant Sue Gray knew and followed the rules over her appointment as his chief of staff, but admitted to frustrations at not being able to defend the hiring while it was scrutinised by the Whitehall watchdog.
Starmer has been accused of “wavering on climate commitments” after the Labour party refused to commit to the £11.6bn climate funding pledge made to the world’s poorest nations.
A rightwing lobby group that does not declare its donors is spearheading a campaign to undermine the spread of the four-day week in the UK.
Updated
Priti Patel launches bid to water down Commons motion criticising 7 Johnson loyalists who attacked privileges inquiry
Dame Priti Patel, the former home secretary, is leading an attempt to water down the motion being debated on Monday criticising the MPs who spoke out against the privileges committee’s investigation into Boris Johnson.
Patel is one of seven Tory MPs accused in a recent privileges committee report of trying to undermine its inquiry into Johnson by publicly denouncing it as biased.
On Monday MPs will debate the recent report, and the motion proposed by the committee. Without naming Patel or the other six Tories, it says that when the privileges committee is carrying out an inquiry, MPs “should not impugn the integrity of that committee or its members or attempt to lobby or intimidate those members or to encourage others to do so, since such behaviour undermines the proceedings of the house and is itself capable of being a contempt”.
Patel has tabled an amendment that would remove the reference to impugning the integrity of the committee, or intimidating its members.
Instead, her motion just says that, when the committee is carrying out an inquiry, MPs “should not attempt personally to lobby or intimidate those members or to encourage others to do so, since such behaviour undermines the proceedings of the house and is itself capable of being a contempt”.
No one has accused the seven Tories of trying to personally lobby members of the committee; the accusation is that they maligned them on Twitter, or on the media.
If Patel’s amendment were to pass, it would mean she and her six colleagues would avoid the embarrassment to the Commons voting to implicitly condemn their conduct.
Brendan Clarke-Smith and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, another two of the seven Tories singled out for criticism by the privileges committee, have signed Patel’s amendment. The other four Tories – Nadine Dorries, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Jenkinson and Sir Michael Fabricant – have not yet signed it.
Patel, Jenkyns, Rees-Mogg and Fabricant were all included in Johnson’s resignation honours. Dorries was expecting to be included, too, but her peerage was blocked.
Wendy Chamberlain, the Lib Dem MP, has tabled an alternative amendment saying all seven Tories named in the report should face an investigation over claims they committed a contempt of parliament.
It is for the speaker to decide whether amendments are called, and it is possible that he could decide that neither should be put to a vote.
Updated
Turning back to benefit overpayments and underpayments (see 12.32pm), in the comments Dora73 asks:
Is the rise in the DWP fraud figures not explained by Covid/furlough/job retention scheme false/fraudulent/over claims?
The answer seems to be yes. This chart shows overpayment rates, according to when a claim started, and it shows that claims lodged during the first lockdown have a far higher overpayment rate than other claims. “Overpayment”, in this context, covers fraudulent claims as well as mistakes.
At the height of the pandemic some of the usual checks were eased to ensure that people got money quickly.
Updated
Scottish junior doctors call off strike after getting 12.4% pay rise offer – best equivalent deal in UK
BMA Scotland has called off a planned strike by junior doctors after the Scottish government offered them a 12.4% pay rise.
The award follows a 4.5% pay rise in 2022-23, leading to a cumulative increase of 17.5% over two years.
The Scottish government said the pay deal amounted to a £61.3m investment in junior doctors’ pay and that this was the best pay offer for this group in the UK.
Michael Matheson, the health secretary in the Scottish government, said:
Following months of negotiations with BMA Scotland, I am delighted that we have agreed a pay deal for 2023-24 for our junior doctors. BMA have agreed to suspend strike action in Scotland while they consult with their members.
I hope this investment and the significant commitments we have given around pay and contract reform will show junior doctors how much we value them, and that we are determined to ensure that Scotland is the place for junior doctors to work and train.
Dr Chris Smith, the chair of the BMA’s Scottish junior doctors committee, said his negotiating team had reached the limit of what it thought it could achieve this year and that it did not think strike action would achieve a better offer. “As a result, we have agreed to suspend next week’s strikes and put this offer to our members,” he said.
He went on:
This offer commits the government to working with doctors to restore our pay and prevent pay erosion from occurring in the future.
This is an unprecedented shift from the Scottish government, which is a recognition of the huge decline in real-terms pay that doctors have experienced over the past 15 years, and the huge amount of work needed to undo the damage this has caused to the NHS.
By agreeing to address the way our pay has been cut, and setting out a clear mechanism for doing so, the government is making a serious, welcome commitment to ensuring that pay for junior doctors in Scotland is restored to a fair level.
In England, where junior doctors have also been on strike, the UK government has offered 5%.
The BMA says it wants a 26% pay rise, to restore pay to the equivalent level it was in 2008.
The Scottish government says its offer means someone starting out as a junior doctor would get a pay rise of £3,429 in 2023-24. Someone much more senior would get a pay rise of £7,111.
The term junior doctor is a misnomer, because it refers to all hospital doctors below consultant level. In other workplaces most of them would not be considered junior at all.
Updated
Sunak urged to develop rules before general election to stop political parties misusing AI in campaigning
Rishi Sunak has been urged to set out guidance as to how political parties should and shouldn’t use artificial intelligence when they campaign in the general election.
The Demos thinktank says that, with major elections due next year in countries including the US, the UK, India, Australia and Mexico, this will be “the first major electoral cycle in the era of widespread generative AI” and that the risk of voters being misled by AI content is high.
In a letter to Sunak, Polly Curtis, the head of Demos, said that, while legislation covering this problem was likely to come at some point in the future, it would probably be too late for the general election. She said Sunak and other party leaders should act now. She told the PM:
We are calling on all the major UK political parties to play their part in trying to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes by developing and publishing policies about how they will use generative AI in their campaigning, setting out what they will and won’t understand as an acceptable use, how they will protect personal data within that and how they will be transparent with voters about their use of AI.
Explaining the scale of the problem, she said:
We are growing increasingly concerned about the potential for the digital disruption around elections to be rapidly amplified in coming months by the ease with which the new technology can be accessed and deployed.
This could look like AI-generated images of candidates doing heroic things, that never happened. Or it could be attack adverts on opponents, that are simply made up. At some point, a political candidate will give a speech that was written with ChatGPT that contains ‘hallucinated’ statistics. This doesn’t need to be officially sanctioned – you just need one campaign volunteer to get over-enthusiastic with the technology and you have a misinformation row on your hands that will make voters mistrust more of the information that they see.
Beyond political actors, the risks continue: women politicians who already face online hate on a daily basis will find manipulated, sexualised images of them circulating – such as pornographic deepfakes. Or outside actors looking to subvert democracy could create AI flooding social media with false or misleading information about the election.
Curtis’s colleague Ellen Judson, the head of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos, has written more about the problem in an article for the Guardian which you can read here.
Updated
Scottish government floats idea of setting up citizens' assembly to consider legalising drugs in regulated market
The Scottish government is not just proposing decriminalising drugs for personal use; in its policy paper, it suggests there should be a debate about legalising drugs, within a regulated market. It floats the idea of setting up a citizens’ assembly to consider the proposition.
It says:
Decriminalisation for personal supply, as with prohibition, provides no additional control over the market and essentially continues to leave it in the hands of organised crime. It continues to provide revenue to fund other illegal activity, further driving violence and crime in our communities. It also accepts that there can be no quality or safety controls on the substances people are consuming, something we simply wouldn’t accept with other, legal and regulated harmful products like alcohol or tobacco.
While we do not currently advocate for this policy, implementing a more evidence-based approach to drugs policy could be the basis for considering the potential of introducing regulated markets for the reduction of harm and the safe control of substances. This could be supported by a citizens’ assembly to consider the evidence and give a perspective from a representative sample of the public. This would enable a mature, informed conversation about the level of regulation and control that we as a society are comfortable with for substances, based on an expert assessment of their relative harms.
A debate of this kind could consider the many ways in which substances could be regulated, including licensed sales, expanded pharmacy provision or state run monopolies and the means for achieving this. Which measures are most appropriate for which drug should be determined by the evidence. A considered, methodical and cautious approach would be essential. In Canada’s regulated cannabis market a staged approach was taken, introducing new products slowly over time. Starting with strict regulation allows for the possibility for later easing, if and when evidence and evaluation proves that it is safe to do so.
What Scottish government says about how evidence supports decriminalising drugs for personal use
Here is an extract from the Scottish government’s policy paper explaining why it is advocating decriminalising drugs for personal use. The document is laden with footnotes (there are 92 of them, for just 12 pages of text – that’s why they are claiming it is “evidence based”) and all the links in this passage lead to documents referenced in the relevant footnote.
Using the evidence from other countries, decriminalising drugs for personal use would help and support people rather than criminalise and stigmatise them; freeing individuals from the fear of accessing treatment and support, reducing drug related harms and, ultimately, improving lives.
In addition to these critical public health benefits, people who use drugs would no longer be channelled into the criminal justice system, reducing the costs to the justice system. Decriminalisation could result in fewer people being imprisoned and free up law enforcement resources to address other priorities.
Decriminalisation is no longer as radical a proposal as it was. In fact, 30 countries around the world have now recognised the harm caused by criminalisation and moved to change their drug laws, in different ways and with varying levels of effectiveness. In 2018, the UN chief executives board, which includes the head of every UN agency agreed the first ‘UN common position supporting the implementation of the international drug control policy through effective inter-agency collaboration’. The common position committed ‘to promote alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use, and to promote the principle of proportionality, to address prison overcrowding and overincarceration by people accused of drug crimes’.
While there are many factors that have an impact on drug use and substance issues – including social, cultural and economic factors – evidence indicates that decriminalisation directs more people into treatment, reduces criminal justice costs, and reduces the negative impact that a criminal conviction can have on a person who uses drugs. While the research base is complex, limited and growing rapidly, the majority of studies on decriminalisation have found that people’s usage tends to remain the same and in cases where usage does increase, the change is generally small and may be limited to adults rather than young people.
Updated
Reeves signals Labour not ruling out getting rid of two-child benefit cap, but stresses any pledge would have to be funded
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has refused to commit an incoming Labour government to scrapping the two-child benefit cap but signalled it could be lifted in a party review of universal credit.
The cap, introduced by David Cameron’s coalition government, means that families on universal credit with more than two children do not get extra funding for additional children unless they are the result of multiple births or conceived by rape or coercion.
The policy, criticised by many as a “rape clause”, has been condemned by senior Labour figures. Jonathan Ashworth, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary, described it recently as “heinous” and hinted Labour would scrap it.
On Thursday, Keir Starmer was asked whether that was party policy, he replied: “That isn’t our policy and if it changes, I’ll let you know.” Critics, including the Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon, read that as Starmer ruling out any changes. She posted a tweet describing the policy as “abhorrent”, and saying it should be scrapped.
I know colleagues are scared of deselection, being exiled to backbenches, or not winning selections but if we don’t speak out then who will?
— Monica Lennon MSP (@MonicaLennon7) July 6, 2023
The two-child benefit cap (aka the rape clause) is abhorrent and must be scrapped. @UKLabour policies must be progressive and humane. https://t.co/GCuuXrF3sd
Speaking to reporters during a visit to British Gas’s Scottish training base in Hamilton, Reeves said Labour was focused on tackling the cost of living crisis by extending the windfall tax to soften the impact of soaring inflation and mortgage costs.
She implied the future of cap was under consideration, but only if doing so passed her stringent costings tests. She said:
[Ashworth] has committed to a fundamental review of how universal credit works across a whole range of areas, because this is not the only area where people have concerns about how universal credit is working.
But you’ll know as well that I’ve said everything in our manifesto will be fully costed and fully funded. If we win the next election, we will inherit the worst economic inheritance that any government has ever been bequeathed by its predecessor.
And that means that there are things we would like to do that we’re not able to do quite as quickly as we would want.
Signalling that the costs of reform were uppermost in her thinking, Reeves said Labour faced “huge demands” from the NHS, transport, the green energy transition. She said it was crucial “everything we do is built on a rock of economic and fiscal stability”.
Updated
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the No 10 spokesperson confirmed that ministers are still considering the recommendation from the pay review body for teachers’ pay. (See 8.53am.) They are considering what rise might be appropriate in the context of inflationary pressures, the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson was also asked if Rishi Sunak supported Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, ordering cartoon murals at an asylum centre for unaccompanied child migrants to be covered up, to stop the place looking too welcoming. (See 11.24am.) The spokesperson said the government did want to deter people from coming to the UK in small boats, but it also wanted to ensure that child migrants in care were safe, secure and supported.
Updated
Labour criticises SNP for proposing decriminalising personal drug use
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has said an incoming Labour government would not decriminalise drug supply or possession.
“The short answer is no,” she told reporters in Hamilton. She went on:
I find it quite stunning this would be a priority for the Scottish government, when we are today talking about the Tory mortgage bombshell.
[We’ve] got more than 700,000 people in Scotland on NHS waiting lists. Pick an issue. There are so many issues you could be focusing on.
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said Scotland had exactly the same drugs misuse laws as the rest of the UK yet its drug death figures were three times higher. “It’s their cuts to alcohol and drug health partnerships; it’s their cuts to rehabilitation beds; it’s the failure to properly invest in mental health services,” he said.
He went on:
Every single big problem, [the SNP] seek to find a constitutional divide and fight rather than actually using the powers they have to change people’s lives in Scotland.
Rachel is absolutely right: people right now are struggling to put food on the table and struggling to get access to NHS treatment that could save their lives. And they’re seeing the Scottish government talking about decriminalising drugs for personal supply. I think they’re going to make themselves look even more out of touch.
Sarwar added, however, that he remained in favour of setting up safe consumption rooms – a policy opposed by the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. He said the lord advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, already had the powers to set those up through Scotland’s laws on policing.
Updated
Humza Yousaf says decriminalisation for personal use would be 'evidence-based and compassionate' drugs policy
Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, has tweeted about his government’s call for Westminister to allow Scotland to decriminalise drugs for personal use, or to introduce this approach throughout the UK.
Rather optimistically, he says he is willing to cooperate with Westminster on this approach. But No 10 isn’t so keen. (See 12.40pm.)
Yousaf says:
Our radical paper on drug law reform calls for an evidence-based and compassionate approach to tackling drug use. While @scotgov absolutely has responsibilities, many of the levers are in the UK Govt’s hands. We’re willing to work with them to enable us to take a bold approach.
Our radical paper on drug law reform calls for an evidence-based & compassionate approach to tackling drug use. While @scotgov absolutely has responsibilities, many of the levers are in the UK Govt's hands. We're willing to work with them to enable us to take a bold approach. https://t.co/Vjwi8ib6M1 pic.twitter.com/FRsEMDPEMK
— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) July 7, 2023
The UK Government could make changes themselves or devolve the appropriate powers to the Scottish Government, allowing us to make the necessary changes at a time when drug deaths continue to be far too high.
— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) July 7, 2023
Full paper on the link below 👇https://t.co/bgqRqs6asI
Updated
No 10 rejects call from Scottish government for it to be allowed to decriminalise all drugs for personal use
Downing Street has rejected a call from the Scottish government for it to be allowed to decriminalise all drugs for personal use.
The Scottish government has proposed the idea in a policy paper which acknowledges that, because drug policy is reserved to Westminster, Scotland would only be able to implement this approach if the UK government granted it a section 30 order (an opt-out from the reserved power laws in the Scotland Act).
Scotland’s drugs policy minister Elena Whitham said:
These are ambitious and radical proposals, grounded in evidence, that will help save lives.
We want to create a society where problematic drug use is treated as a health, not a criminal matter, reducing stigma and discrimination and enabling the person to recover and contribute positively to society.
While we know these proposals will spark debate, they are in line with our public health approach and would further our national mission to improve and save lives.
We are working hard within the powers we have to reduce drug deaths, and while there is more we need to do, our approach is simply at odds with the Westminster legislation we must operate within.
In response, No 10 said Rishi Sunak has no plans to alter his “tough stance” on drugs.
Asked if Sunak was likely to give the Scottish government the powers it wants to alter drug laws, a Downing Street spokesperson replied:
No. Whilst I haven’t seen those reports I think I’m confident enough to say that there are no plans to alter our tough stance on drugs.
Updated
Is the DWP overpaying or underpaying benefit claimants?
Here is a good question from a reader, which would probably make a good media studies exam question.
Yesterday the Guardian reported that the NAO had said that the DWP had underpaid benefits to the tune of £3bn or so. The Daily Mail reported that the NAO had said that benefits had been overpaid to the tune of £8bn or so. Obviously there is a huge discrepancy, which surely can’t just be attributed to the, shall we say, “editorial differences” between the two. Can you shed any light on this, please?
The answer, surprisingly, is that both headlines, and both reports, are accurate.
The figures come from the Department for Work and Pensions’ annual report and accounts, which contain figures both for the amount of benefits overpaid and for the amount underpaid.
Of the £8.3bn that was overpaid, most of that, £6.4bn, was due to fraud, the report says. But some of it was due to error, either by claimants (£1.4bn) or by the DWP (£600m). (These figures add up to £8.4bn, but the report gives £8.3bn as the total – presumably because of rounding up/rounding down.)
The document also says that £3.3bn was underpaid – either due to error by the DWP (£1.2bn) or to error by claimants (£2.1bn).
You could combine these figures and conclude that, in net terms, the DWP is overpaying by £5bn – although that is not a calculation the DWP makes, because it would involve combining one set of data including the impact of fraud, and another not including fraud.
Equally, you could look at the figures and conclude that the DWP is more likely to underpay by mistake than to overpay by mistake – but claimants also seem more likely to underclaim than to overclaim, based on these figures.
As for why the Mail and the Guardian chose to report the same set of accounts quite differently, the media studies students can work out what that tells you about the politics of both papers. You can make a case for choosing both angles.
The Mail would say £8.3bn is the bigger number, and therefore it is the most important part of the story. The Mail also says this is “more than double the £4.1bn estimated to have been overpaid in 2018-19” – although this formula overlooks the fact that, year on year, the amount lost through overpayments is going down (hence the green arrow in the table).
By focusing on the £3.3bn, the Guardian was highlighting something more unexpected, and “new’ in the figures. Underpayments (unlike overpayments) are at their highest level on record. This is why, in its response, the National Audit Office specifically recommends new measures to resolve the underpayments problem, in addition to all the work that already goes on at the DWP to try to reduce overpayments.
Updated
There are two interesting immigration stories in the papers today.
In the Sun, Harry Cole says that in August last year the Home Office drew up a plan to get net migration numbers down by capping the number of visas issued. Priti Patel was home secretary at the time. But Cole says that when the plan was presented to Liz Truss (who made Suella Braverman home secretary), it was rejected.
Truss wanted to prioritise growth, and realised that slashing immigration would make this more difficult.
Cole says the Home Office plan went much further than anything else the government has done to reduce net migration. He says the cabinet was presented with two options.
One was to “pursue actions to reduce total inward migration”.
It said: “This could include capping some routes, changing thresholds (skills/salary), restricting the rights of dependents, and/or reducing the attractiveness of the graduate visa”.
The second option was not to make changes and instead to spin the line that “we have control of inward migration”.
But it warned: “A strong narrative will be required to explain the rationale.”
The document states the most effective policy lever would be an absolute cap or emergency brake and rated its certainty of success as high. But it warned there would be major effects on critical sectors of the economy that might be hard to defend.
According to the Sun, the Home Office document said drastic action was needed in the summer of 2022 to enable the government to meet the 2019 manifesto pledge to get net migration below 225,000. Rishi Sunak has now abandoned that target.
And in the i, Arj Singh says “murals of cartoon characters painted on the walls of an asylum centre in Kent for unaccompanied children have been painted over following an order from Robert Jenrick”. Earlier in the week he reported that the immigration minister had ordered staff to cover up the pictures because he did not want the centre to look welcoming. Singh reports:
Responding to the news that the murals were painted over, critics said Mr Jenrick was a “heartless” villain who was “guilty of trivial nastiness” while wasting taxpayer money.
Shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said: “The idea that painting over murals and removing entertainment for unaccompanied children in immigration centres will somehow stop the boats is utterly absurd.
“This is a sign of a chaotic government in crisis, whose failing approach means all they have left is tough talk and cruel and callous policies.”
Updated
Half of Ukrainians who have come to UK fleeing war would like to stay even when it's safe to go back, ONS survey suggests
More than half of adults who fled Ukraine because of the war want to stay in the UK even when it is safe to return to their home country, PA Media reports. PA says:
Some 52% said they intend to live in the UK most of the time when they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, according to research by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The majority of these people said this decision was because there are more opportunities for work in the UK, the ONS said.
The survey was based on data collected from 10,709 people aged 18 and above between 27 April and 15 May 2023.
All those surveyed had been granted a visa under the government schemes launched in the wake of Russia’s invasion, namely the Ukraine Family Scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme or Ukraine Extension Scheme.
The latest government data, up to 27 June, showed that 233,600 Ukraine scheme visas has been issued, and 178,900 visa-holders had arrived in the UK.
Updated
Ministers could find all four teaching unions going on strike in the autumn if they do not improve their offer to teachers, a union leader said today.
Speaking on a picket line outside Oasis Academy South Bank in London, Niamh Sweeney, the deputy secretary of the National Education Union, said:
The government needs to think – does it want to come round the table and negotiate now, or does it want the prospect of all four education unions being able to take strike action in September? That would be a real failure on their behalf.
She said 40,000 teachers left the profession in England last year and there was currently “an absolute crisis in recruitment and retention”.
She also said Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, had not negotiated with the NEU since Easter.
The other unions which, like the NEU, are balloting members on strike action in the autumn are the National Association of Head Teachers, NASUWT and the Association of School and College Leaders.
Updated
Only 23% of 2019 Tory voters think Sunak is better PM than Johnson, poll suggests
It is a year to the day since Boris Johnson announced that he would be resigning as prime minister.
According to new polling by YouGov for the Times, only 26% of people think Rishi Sunak is better than Johnson as PM. Twenty-one percent think he is worse, and the rest either don’t know (12%) or think they are about the same (42%).
Worryingly for Sunak, it is people who voted Conservative in 2019 and people who voted leave who seem to have the lowest regard for him.
Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters are much more likely to say he is better than Johnson than to say he is worse than Johnson (although a large proportion of both groups think the two Tory leaders are much the same).
But 35% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 think Sunak is worse than Johnson; only 23% think he is better. For leave voters, the figures are almost the same. Again, 35% of them think Sunak is worse, and only 19% say he is better.
EXCLUSIVE:
— Matt Chorley (@MattChorley) July 7, 2023
A year after Johnson quit, just 1 in 4 of voters think Sunak is any better@yougov poll for @TimesRadio shows more 2019 Tory voters think he is worse than better.
More on your radio from 10am pic.twitter.com/HsUGnb1Man
The poll also suggests that, while 68% of people do not think Johnson should try to return to parliament, 59% think he will attempt a comeback.
We also asked if Boris Johnson would make a comeback as an MP
— Matt Chorley (@MattChorley) July 7, 2023
Most thing he will.
Most wish he wouldn’t
📻More on @TimesRadio from 10am, when the legend @jonculshaw also joins us pic.twitter.com/zXT0iom3TM
Updated
Q: John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, says you are drunk on power, and excluding people with alternative views.
Starmer does not accept that.
Ferrari mentions various figures who have been suspended.
Starmer says there are different issues involved in those cases.
He says, within the party, there are arguments the whole time. They then take a collective view.
But he has changed Labour, he says. He says he has turned it “inside out”, so that it is facing the electorate.
And that’s it. The phone-in is over.
Q: Do you think banks should close people’s accounts because of their views?
No, says Starmer. But he says he does not believe that this is happening as much as some reports suggest.
Q: Do you think the Bank of England has failed to control inflation?
Starmer says he is not going to criticise the Bank. He says the Liz Truss mini-budget was more to blame.
Q: You have watered down your promise to spend £28bn a year on a green investment fund?
Starmer does not accept that. They would work up to spending that amount in the second or third year of a Labour government, not spending that amount straight away.
But, he says, he had to adapt the plans because the cost of government borrowing has gone up so sharply.
Q: My fear is that sewage in water could lead to a typhoid problem?
Ferrari asks if Labour favours water nationalisation.
Starmer says he does not back that. But he says he wants more accountability in the water industry. Water bosses should be personally liable, whether that is criminally or civilly, he says.
And he says the government should consider withdrawing licences from water companies.
Q: Why not common ownership for water? You backed this when you were running for Labour leader. Is this another flip flop?
No, says Starmer. He says he is practical. In some areas, he backs common ownership. But he has looked at it, and in water it would just mean paying a huge sum of money to shareholders.
Updated
Asked about Labour’s plans for more creative learning at schools, Starmer says he studied music at school and knows how valuable it is.
Ferrari plays a clip from Andrew Lloyd Webber talking about how music teaches skills like working as part of a team.
Starmer says he completely agrees.
He says the earnings of parents are still more likely to determine how children end up than their talent. He wants to change that, he says.
Updated
Q: Do you support a 6.5% pay rise recommendation for teachers?
Starmer says we have not seen the actual recommendation.
He says the government should publish that.
But he says he cannot commit to accepting that now.
Q: So you would honour it?
Starmer says he would look at it. He cannot say now what a Labour government would do in a year or two.
But these issues only get resolved by negotiation, he says.
He says that is why he would order his education secretary to keep negotiating.
Starmer says the Rwanda policy is the wrong policy.
The next caller asks if Starmer backs Tony Blair’s suggestion that there should be further co-payment in the NHS.
Starmer says he feels very strongly about this. He is committed to the NHS being free at the point of use.
Q: Tony Blair said brave political leadership was needed to save the NHS.
Starmer says he thinks Blair’s comments have been misunderstood.
Updated
Starmer reveals further detail of his 'brief' conversation with Sue Gray about her working for Labour
Starmer is now being asked about his talks with Sue Gray.
He says he spoke to Sue Gray in October last year.
In that call, he asked her, if she were to leave the civil service, would she be interested in working for him.
It was a brief conversation, he says. He says they left it at that.
The only other conversation came when the news that she might join Labour was leaked. At that point he called her to check she was OK, he says. That was just before she resigned, he says.
He says he was not able to talk about this in detail previously because he was asked by the advisory committee on business appointments not to discuss this.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
Now I can give the full readout. It was a short call. It was towards the end of October and I phoned Sue — I’ve known her for a number of years, she is a phenomenal woman.
I was looking for a chief-of-staff and the conversation I had with her, which was a short conversation, which is, ‘I’m looking for a chief-of-staff, if you were to leave the civil service, is this something you might consider?’.
Because I knew the rules, she knew the rules. And we left it at that. I then didn’t speak to hear again, that was the extent of it. The only caveat is, when the leak came and she decided she would stand down, just before she stood down, I gave her a call to make sure she was alright and to find out what she was doing.
But that was the long and the short of it and that is why I’ve always been confident in saying there was no breach of the code.
I didn’t discuss politics, I didn’t discuss policy. I simply said, if you are to stand down at some point, would you be interested in being my chief-of-staff.
Updated
Starmer says Labour would give London mayor more money to alleviate impact of Ulez extension on drivers
Starmer says Labour would make more money available to help London alleviate the impact of the Ulez extension on drivers.
Q: So why can’t Sadiq Khan delay it until that help is available?
Starmer says Khan is under a legal obligation.
He is facing legal action over going ahead with it, but he would face legal action if he did not, he says.
Starmer backs Ulez extension, saying mayor has no alternative - but says London needs more money to help those affected
The first caller asks about the extension of Ulez. He says it will decimate people’s lives. Sadiq Khan is “chilling” London, he says. He says he won’t vote Labour because of the policy, and he suggests the Ulez extension policy will cost Labour the election.
Starmer says he recognises how difficult this will be. “This is a lot of money,” he says.
He says the mayor has a legal obligation to do something about air pollution.
And the first Ulez was introduced by Boris Johnson, a Tory mayor, he says.
He says the question is, what can government do to help people.
There is a scrappage scheme – but it is only worth £2,000.
Starmer says other cities have had money from central government to help with clean air initiatives. But London has not had help.
Q: Do you support the roll-out of Ulez?
Starmer says he understands the difficulty it is calling …
Q: But do you support it?
Starmer says he does not think there is an alternative. He has looked at the law.
Q: Why can’t the mayor delay it?
Starmer says he knows that Sadiq Khan does listen to people.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
I accept that the mayor has no choice but to go ahead because of the legal obligation on him …
I think Danny [Beales, Labour’s candidate in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election] is right to stick up for his constituents. I understand the pain it is going to inflict …
My experience of the mayor is he always listens to these overtures and that is why he has asked for more money on scrappage.
I’ve looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision. I think it is difficult to say you could simply ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the mayor in fairness is between a rock and a hard place on this.
Updated
Keir Starmer holds LBC phone-in
Keir Starmer is holding his LBC phone-in.
Nick Ferrari is presenting. He asks Starmer about his Jonny Bairstow moment yesterday – when his speech got disrupted by protesters.
Q: Did you speak to them afterwards?
No, says Starmer. He said he had to leave for another engagement.
Teachers in England strike as minister says it is ‘impossible to say’ if pay recommendation will be accepted
Good morning. Teachers in England are on strike again today and Keir Starmer will shortly be holding his regular LBC phone-in where he is bound to be asked what Labour would do to end the dispute. In his Q&A with journalists yesterday, he had what sounded like a reasonably good answer – keep negotiating every day until there is a deal – but it was an answer that obscured how far he might go to actually get a deal.
Education is in crisis and schools need the funds to give children the education they deserve.
— National Education Union (@NEUnion) July 7, 2023
Teachers & support staff need to be paid properly for the essential work they do.
Enough is enough.
Find your nearest demo at https://t.co/THUXsM1nDk#DoYourJobGill #SaveOurSchools pic.twitter.com/HvKark8puR
It has been reported that the pay review body will recommend a 6.5% pay rise for teachers for 2023-24. This morning Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), told the Today programme that, if the government were to accept that, and if schools were to get the funding to pay that (without having to make cuts elsewhere), teachers would accept.
But ministers have not committed to accepting this year’s recommendations from the public sector pay bodies, and this morning Robert Halfon, an education minister, confirmed this. He told Sky News that it was “impossible to say” at this point if the recommendation for teachers’ pay would be accepted. He said:
The message from the government is that we have to be as fair as possible, given the very difficult economic circumstances — don’t forget we still have £2tn in debt partly caused because of the £400bn spent on Covid, we’ve got the billions of pounds that are being spent on helping people with the cost of living and reducing energy bills.
We have to be as fair as possible to teachers and support staff, I completely get that. But we have to be fair to the taxpayer and make sure we bear down on inflation as well, as that is the biggest tax on the cost of living – that would effect everyone, teachers and support staff included.
Pressed again on this point, he said:
You are asking what is impossible to say at this point in time. The pay review bodies will publish, the government will make its decision in due course.
Starmer is on LBC at 9am.
Otherwise, it looks like it could be a quiet day politically – there is nothing much in the diary – but the God of News will doubtless provide us with something.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
